Parent Satisfaction with Educational Experiences scale: A multivariate examination of parent satisfaction with early childhood education programs

Early Childhood Research Quarterly 21 (2006) 142–152

Parent Satisfaction with Educational Experiences scale: A multivariate examination of parent satisfaction with early childhood education programs John Fantuzzo a,∗ , Marlo A. Perry a , Stephanie Childs b b

a University of Pennsylvania, United States School District of Philadelphia, United States

Abstract The study investigated a scale developed to measure parents’ satisfaction with experiences of various aspects of their child’s early education program. The Parent Satisfaction with Educational Experiences (PSEE) scale was co-constructed with parents and teachers in preschool, kindergarten, and first grade programs in a large urban school district. Demographic and PSEE data were collected from a representative sample of 648 parents. Factor analyses yielded three dimensions of parent satisfaction with teacher contact experiences, classroom contact experiences, and school contact experiences. Multivariate analyses showed that parents with children in Head Start or kindergarten were more satisfied in all three dimensions than were parents of children in child care or first grade. Married parents were more satisfied with their teacher contact than were single parents and parents who were not employed full-time were more satisfied with their contact across all three dimensions than were parents who were employed full-time. Implications for fostering parent involvement were discussed. © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Parent satisfaction; Educational experiences; Childhood education

Research has documented the value of parent involvement in early childhood education and its relation to positive outcomes for children (Southwest Educational Development Laboratory [SEDL], 2002, 2004; U.S. Department of Education, 1994, 2001). Parent involvement in the early years has been associated with higher achievement levels in elementary and high school (U.S. Department of Education, 1994), lower high school dropout and retention rates (Miedel & Reynolds, 1999; U.S. Department of Education, 1994), fewer years spent in special education (Miedel & Reynolds, 1999), and greater social competence (Kohl, Lengua, & McMahon, 2000). Other research has shown that parental beliefs and expectations about their children’s learning are strongly related to children’s beliefs about their own competencies, as well as their achievement (Galper, Wigfield, & Seefeldt, 1997). Empirical findings underscoring the overall benefits of parent involvement have resulted in national mandates for parent involvement in schools. Goal 8 of Goals 2000 Educate America Act instructed schools to “promote partnerships that will increase parental involvement and participation in promoting the social, emotional and academic growth of children” (U.S. Department of Education, 1994). More recently, the No Child Left Behind Act has made changes to Title

∗

Corresponding author at: Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania, 3700 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States. Tel.: +1 215 898 4790. E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Fantuzzo). 0885-2006/$ – see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.04.002

J. Fantuzzo et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 21 (2006) 142–152

143

I funding eligibility, requiring recipients of funds to have plans and activities that facilitate home–school collaborations (Epstein, 1995, 1996; U.S. Department of Education, 2004). With such mandates in place, researchers and practitioners are working toward advancing their knowledge about what constitutes good home–school collaborations and how to implement successful parent involvement practices. Programmatic research on parent involvement has focused on understanding: (a) the nature of home and school contacts; (b) challenges and risks to parent involvement efforts; (c) school practices that encourage parent involvement. Empirical research investigating the nature of contact between families and schools has primarily emphasized home involvement and school involvement; both have been shown to have positive associations with child outcomes. Home involvement refers to providing a learning environment for the child at home and encouraging educational activities at home and in the community (Fantuzzo, Tighe, & Childs, 2000). Parent involvement in educational experiences in the home has been associated with higher achievement scores and higher report card grades (Epstein, 1991; Griffith, 1996; Sui-Chu & Willms, 1996), greater levels of motivation and self-efficacy (Dickinson & DeTemple, 1998; Mantzicopoulos, 1997; Parker, Boak, Griffin, Ripple, & Peay, 1999), higher levels of self-control, responsibility, and cooperative behavior at home (McWayne, Hampton, Fantuzzo, Cohen & Sekino, 2004), and greater levels of interactive peer play and lower levels of disconnected peer play both at home and school (Fantuzzo, Tighe, & Perry, 1999; McWayne et al., 2004). School involvement typically involves parents volunteering in the classroom, going on field trips, or taking their child to school (Epstein, 1995; Fantuzzo et al., 2000). The empirical literature has shown that school involvement is related positively to both academic and social outcomes for children. Children whose parents show high levels of involvement at the school demonstrate greater levels of social competency (Parker et al., 1997), higher levels of adaptive behavior and early basic school skills (Marcon, 1999), greater academic achievement in math and reading (Griffith, 1996; Reynolds, 1992; Sui-Chu & Willms, 1996), and higher rates of school completion (Reynolds, Temple, Robertson, & Mann, 2001). A lesser investigated, but important, point of contact has been referred to as ‘communication’ (Epstein, 1995) or ‘home–school conferencing’ (Fantuzzo et al., 2000). Instead of focusing on specific behaviors, this concept captures the transactional nature of home–school collaboration. This transaction can happen across different contexts, for example, during parent-teacher conferences, over the phone, or in the community. However, the focus of these exchanges is always on the child – the child’s progress, activities in which the child participated, or any difficulties the child might be having at home or at school. This concept of home–school conferencing or communication draws attention to the degree of continuity between the home and school contexts; research has shown that the more similar these contexts are, the more successful the child will be in school endeavors (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001; Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 1999). Research has also investigated characteristics of parents that make it more difficult to build collaborative relationships. Single parenthood, low education levels, minority status, and more recently, employment status, have all been identified as challenges, or risks, to parent involvement efforts (Castro, Bryant, Peisner-Feinberg, & Skinner, 2004; Christenson & Sheridan, 2001; Fantuzzo et al., 2000; Kohl et al., 2000; Raffaele & Knoff, 1999; U.S. Department of Education, 2001). A critical consideration in developing partnership practices is the population whom the school serves. The nation’s schools are growing increasingly diverse, especially our urban schools, which are serving more culturally and linguistically varied populations than ever before (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001; Raffaele & Knoff, 1999). Further, research has shown that parent involvement and collaboration efforts are most important in schools serving culturally diverse and low-income populations (Raffaele & Knoff, 1999). Cultural differences have been recognized in terms of what families expect of schools. For example, one study found that African American and Hispanic parents tend to believe that school involvement efforts should be initiated by school staff (Chavkin & Williams, 1993). These differences need to be noted and accounted for in school staffs’ collaboration efforts. Researchers and practitioners have begun to identify good global practices for schools to facilitate home–school partnerships (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001; Raffaele & Knoff, 1999). Some examples include creating family–school teams, developing communication strategies, and providing training for school staff in reaching out to parents (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001; Raffaele & Knoff, 1999). Studies have demonstrated consistently that school, principal, and teacher practices are more important than parent characteristics (e.g. poverty level, minority status, education level) in getting families involved at school and in influencing levels of family–school contact (Becker & Epstein, 1982; Dauber & Epstein, 1989; Epstein, 1986; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997; Johnstone & Hiatt, 1997; Patrikakou & Weissberg, 2000; Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 1999; Sanders, 2000). However, these practices are not always evident

144

J. Fantuzzo et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 21 (2006) 142–152

to the families whom the schools serve; school staff and administrators have reported higher levels of outreach and encouragement of involvement than parents have reported at those same schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). School administrators have an opportunity to create bi-directional communication to foster genuine parent involvement. To realize this opportunity, administrators will need culturally sensitive and practical means to determine parental satisfaction with various aspects of their school contact. Ideally, a measurement tool developed for this purpose should be created in partnership with parents and educators (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001). This will also help to ensure a successful implementation of the tool. Additionally, to foster large-scale use across a diverse population of parents, this assessment should be relatively brief and easy to complete. The purpose of the present study was twofold: (1) to develop a reliable measure of parent satisfaction of school contact for parents of young children; (2) to use this instrument to examine parent satisfaction levels across different demographic groups and different early childhood programs. We hypothesized that parents experiencing barriers to involvement would be less satisfied with their contact. We also hypothesized that parents would report higher levels of satisfaction with early childhood programs that intentionally include practices that support parent contact. 1. Development of the parent satisfaction with educational experiences scale The Parent Satisfaction with Educational Experiences (PSEE) measure is a brief rating scale that asks primary care-providers of young children (i.e., parents, other family members, or legal guardians) to indicate their level of satisfaction with their experiences of their children’s early childhood education. It was designed to be straightforward for school principals or school district administrators to implement on a large-scale basis (i.e., a small number of items; clear, basic language; a simple response format requiring a short amount of time to complete). The PSEE scale was developed in partnership with parents and teachers in a large, diverse urban school district. A process of measurement development was selected to maximize transactions between researchers and culturally diverse community participants (Gaskins, 1994). This process includes four phases to enhance cultural validity. These are: formulation of a hypothesis, creation of categories, construction of a measure, and interpretation of findings. The first phase involved establishing partnerships with parents to determine their perceptions of their contact with their children’s school. In the next phase, we generated categories based on an understanding of the parents’ experiences. These categories were used to develop items for a measure that reflected adequately the parents’ experiences and that used words and response formats that were clear. Once the information is collected with this measure, the final phase involves a process of sharing the findings with parents and getting their input on the meaning or significance of the results. The development of the PSEE survey began by forming a research committee that included university researchers, school administrators, teachers and parent leaders representing preschool (Head Start and Comprehensive Early Learning Center) kindergarten, and first grade programs. The committee met over a 6-month period, during which they worked on the PSEE scale as part of a larger assessment effort. The committee formed focus groups with parents representing each of the early childhood programs and reviewed Epstein’s major categories of parent involvement (Epstein, 1995). Each focus group had 10–15 parent members, representing the parent composition of each program as a whole. Epstein’s categories were used to consider major categories of parents’ contact with early childhood programs that were relevant for programs from preschool to first grade. Once appropriate categories were selected, the committee worked to craft items to represent each category, along with clear response formats. Finally, to support the cultural validity of the scale, it was field tested with groups of parents across the programs. These groups were comprised of different sets of 10–15 parents, and represented the parent composition of their respective program. This step helped to ensure that parents understood the items, and that items represented an accurate reflection of parent contact with various school and/or center-based contexts. The development process resulted in a 12-item scale. The scale was designed in a 4-point likert format (1-very dissatisfied, 2-dissatisfied, 3-satisfied, and 4-very satisfied) where parents were asked to report on their level of satisfaction with the selected points of contact. 2. Description of sample and data collection procedures The primary care-providers of 648 children participated in this study. The children were enrolled in the school district’s Head Start, Comprehensive Early Learning Center, kindergarten, or first grade programs. Ninety percent of the respondents were mothers of the child, 4.1% were fathers, and 6.7% were other family members. Respondents ranged in age from 19 to 72 years (M = 32.8, S.D. = 7.5), and were predominantly female (93.6%). Sixty percent of the

J. Fantuzzo et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 21 (2006) 142–152

145

Table 1 Demographic characteristics of participating parents (N = 648) Demographic characteristic

Percent of sample

Relationship to child Mother Father Other (stepparent, grandparent, aunt, etc.)

89.3 4.1 6.7

Parent sex Female Male Marital status Single Married Widowed/separated/divorced

93.6 6.4 46.8 39.6 13.6

Employment status Full-time Part-time Unemployed Race African American Caucasian Hispanic Asian Other

59.5 26.3 11.4 0.4 2.0

Education status Less than high school High school graduate/GED More than high school

21.6 35.8 42.6

33.7 25.7 40.6

respondents were African American, 26% were Caucasian, and 14% were other. Of the sample, 34% were employed full-time, 26% were employed part-time, and 41% were unemployed. In addition, 47% of the respondents reported that they were single, 40% were married, and 13% were widowed, separated, or divorced. Finally, 22% of the sample reported to have less than a high school education, 36% reported to have received a high school diploma, while 42% had achieved beyond the high school level. The average number of children per household was 2.5 (S.D. = 1.3), and the average number of adults per household was 2.1 (S.D. = 1.0). Demographic information can also be seen in Table 1. The sample was selected from an urban school district that serves approximately 215,000 children each year. Over 80% of the children served are from low-income families, as indicated by the number of children eligible for free or reduced cost meals. The early childhood programs serve approximately 38,000 children annually, with children distributed across preschool, kindergarten, and first grade. The kindergarten and first grade programs serve 15,000 and 16,000 children per year, respectively. The kindergarten program was a full-day program and like Head Start it required parents to bring the children to the kindergarten classroom each morning. Head Start and Comprehensive Early Learning Center are subsidized programs that assist 5000 and 1800 children per year, respectively. The Comprehensive Early Learning Center Program is a full-day program in the district for children to assist low- to lower-middle income families with working parents and parents in school; this program is partially subsidized and requires parents to pay for a portion of their children’s care. For this study, schools were identified that had both a full set of early childhood programs, including Head Start and Comprehensive Early Learning Center (CELC), and were geographically representative of all regions of the district. Teachers in the early childhood programs of the identified schools were invited to participate in the study. In each participating classroom, teachers were asked to identify children for the study according to the following criteria: for the preschool programs, teacher rosters were used to identify parents of the first boy and girl who would be entering kindergarten the following year; for the kindergarten and first grade levels, the 2nd boy and 3rd girl in each class as indicated by teacher rosters was invited to participate.

146

J. Fantuzzo et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 21 (2006) 142–152

The parents of the selected children were invited to participate. Research assistants distributed packets to parents in each classroom. Parents completed a demographics questionnaire along with the PSEE survey. Project staff met with parents when children were dropped off or picked up from school to provide the opportunity to explain the project, to answer questions, and to read items aloud, if necessary. If, however, parents could not be reached using these methods, packets were sent home through the child’s teacher. Research assistants collected packets as they were completed. The average participation rate across all programs was approximately 65%. 3. Construct validity To determine the construct validity of the 12-item PSEE scale, a series of common factor analyses was performed using both orthogonal (varimax, equamax) and oblique (promax) solutions. A three-factor, varimax solution was selected because it best satisfied standard multiple criteria for retention (McDermott, 1993). First, the factors retained fell within the constraints indicated by Cattell’s scree plot (1966) and parallel analysis (Lautenschlager, Lance, & Flaherty, 1989). Second, each of the factors accounted for greater than 5% of the total variance. Third, each factor demonstrated adequate internal consistency, with alpha coefficients >0.70. Fourth, the final solution minimized intercorrelation of retained unit-weighted factors and items with salient loadings on more than one factor. Finally, the proposed solution was psychologically meaningful and compatible with existing theoretical models. The three-factor solution is defined by the following constructs: teacher contact experiences, classroom contact experiences, and school contact experiences. Each construct was found to be reliable with Cronbach alphas of 0.82, 0.82, and 0.75, respectively. Each of the items loaded appreciably on only one dimension. Table 2 presents the item content and factor loadings for each of these factors. The teacher contact experiences factor consists of teacher-related events, such as telephone conversations with the teacher, notes sent home, and conferences with the teacher about the child’s learning or behavior. The classroom contact experiences factor is defined by parent contact with the classroom setting, including involvement in planning classroom activities and volunteering in the classroom. The school contact experiences dimension describes situations in the global school setting. Items on this factor include parent workshops or training opportunities offered at the school, contact with the school

Table 2 Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory cluster structures for PSEE factors Item content by factor

Exploratory analysis

Confirmatory analysis

Varimaxa

Promaxb

R2 w own cluster/

R2 w next cluster

Structure loading

Factor one: teacher contact experiences (α = 0.82) Telephone conversations with teacher (3)c Notes sent home (6) Conferences with teacher (9) School work sent home to work on with child (11)

0.60 0.68 0.67 0.58

0.65 0.76 0.75 0.57

0.62 0.67 0.67 0.58

0.23 0.24 0.23 0.26

0.79 0.82 0.82 0.76

Factor two: classroom contact experiences (α = 0.82) Parent involvement in planning activities (1) Volunteering in classroom (2) Support given for parent involvement in school (4) Parent participation in decision making (5)

0.77 0.69 0.51 0.60

0.87 0.78 0.43 0.58

0.73 0.66 0.58 0.63

0.25 0.22 0.28 0.26

0.85 0.82 0.76 0.79

Factor three: school contact experiences (α = 0.75) Contact I have had with other parents (7) Workshops or training opportunities offered (8) Contact I have had with principal/administrators (10) Support for our family’s language and culture (12)

0.63 0.60 0.58 0.58

0.39 0.53 0.64 0.55

0.55 0.54 0.55 0.62

0.26 0.23 0.17 0.29

0.74 0.74 0.74 0.79

Note. N = 648. Interfactor correlations were as follows: classroom-teacher contact experiences r = 0.59, school–teacher contact experiences r = 0.75, classroom-school contact experiences r = 0.70. a Factor loadings ≥0.35 are considered appreciable. b Entries were derived from promaxian oblique rotation at k = 4 with the varimax solution serving as the initial orthogonal solution. c Item wording has been abbreviated for ease of presentation; numbers in parentheses indicate the item number on the scale.

J. Fantuzzo et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 21 (2006) 142–152

147

principal or other administrators, and support and encouragement at the school for the family’s language and culture. Integrity of the proposed solution was substantiated through cross-validation and confirmatory analyses. The large sample used for the above analyses was bifurcated randomly to assess the degree to which the final three-factor solution would replicate across two independent samples. The analyses conducted with each subgroup also supported a threedimensional structure. Subsequently, the degree of congruence across the final factor solutions derived from the total and two bifurcated samples was statistically analyzed, using Wrigley–Neuhause coefficients of factorial congruence. The Wrigley–Neuhause analyses involve comparisons across every possible combination of factors, yielding two types of coefficients: one that shows the extent of similarity across hypothesized like factors and, conversely, one that shows the degree of dissimilarity for hypothesized unlike factors (Gaudagnoli & Velicer, 1991). High levels of congruence (coefficients ≥0.98) were found for like factors in comparisons between each subgroup and the large sample. Coefficients for unlike factors were moderate (≤0.79), indicating a lesser degree of congruence. Additionally, similar levels of congruence were found for hypothesized like and unlike factors in comparisons between male and female subgroups and the larger sample. In order to confirm composition of the final three-factor structure, the 12 items retained during exploratory analyses were subjected to a confirmatory, multiple-group cluster analysis (Harman, 1976). Hypothesized cluster membership was based on the exploratory analyses, and items were permitted to migrate iteratively to clusters that better explained item variance. In this analysis, the retention of items in the original hypothesized groupings serves to confirm the integrity of the exploratory structure. The empirically derived structure was superior to any of the alternatives, explaining a higher proportion of the item variance than the alternatives (see Table 2). 4. Assessment of child and family demographic differences Items comprising each of the dimensions were totaled, and raw scores were transformed by area conversion1 (Thorndike, 1982) into T scores (M = 50, S.D. = 10). One-way MANOVAs were conducted to determine if there were significant differences in PSEE dimensions as a function of caregiver employment, marital status, race, education level, child gender, and number of children in the household. Descriptive statistics for these variables are presented in Table 3. The variable for caregiver employment status was comprised of three levels: full-time, part-time, and unemployed. A significant MANOVA was found for employment status (Wilkes’ Λ, F (6, 1246) = 4.04, p < 0.001; η2p = 0.02). Parents who were not employed full-time expressed more satisfaction with their experiences across all three contexts: teacher contact experiences F (2, 574) = 6.45, p < 0.01 (η2p = 0.02); classroom contact experiences, F (2, 789) = 8.19, p < 0.0001 (η2p = 0.03); and school contact experiences F (2, 985) = 10.26, p < 0.0001 (η2p = 0.03). Specifically, parents who were employed part-time or unemployed were more satisfied with their experiences with the teacher, in the classroom, and in the school (Tukey’s HSD). The MANOVA for marital status examined differences in PSEE factors across three levels: married, single, and other (widowed, separated, and divorced). A significant effect was found for marital status (Wilkes’ Λ, F (6, 1272) = 2.76, p < 0.05; η2p = 0.01). Married parents were significantly more satisfied with their teacher contact experiences than were single parents (F (2, 339) = 3.77, p < 0.05; η2p = 0.01) (Tukey’s HSD). Differences in PSEE factors as a function of race, caregiver education level, child gender and number of children in the household were also examined. The variable for race was comprised of three levels: African American, Caucasian, and other. The variable for caregiver education was comprised of three levels: parents with less than a high school education, those with a high school diploma, and those parents with more than a high school education. For the number of children per household, two groups were formed above and below the median of two children per household (group1 = 1 child/household, group2 = 2 or more children/household). MANOVAs indicated no significant differences for race, F (6, 1268) = 1.61, p > 0.10, education level, F (6,

1

Area conversion is the desirable choice over linear conversion when the raw score items of a scale are skewed from a normal distribution. Based on the percentile distribution of the raw scores, area conversion transforms the raw scores into normally distributed standard scores. Each standard score is associated with the appropriate proportion of cases under the normal curve, allowing one to see how any given score relates to the mean. This procedure preserves the percentile comparability across dimensions and allows for easier interpretation of group differences (McDermott, 1993; McDermott & Weiss, 1995).

148

J. Fantuzzo et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 21 (2006) 142–152

Table 3 Means for PSEE factors as a function of demographic characteristics Variable

PSEE factor Teacher

Classroom

School

M

S.D.

M

S.D.

M

S.D.

Caregiver education Greater than high school High school diploma or GED Less than high school

48.2 48.9 48.6

9.7 8.8 10.4

47.8 48.9 50.3

9.9 9.4 10.3

47.7 49.2 50.3

10.5 8.5 10.8

Parent marital statusb Married Single Separated/divorced/widowed

49.8a 47.6b 48.8

9.0 10.1 8.6

48.4 49.0 49.0

10.7 9.2 9.8

48.8 48.5 50.1

10.0 10.1 9.0

Parent employment statusc Presently employed full-time Presently employed part-time Not presently employed

46.7b 49.3a 49.7a

9.9 9.8 8.9

46.7b 49.0a 50.4a

10.2 9.9 9.5

46.4b 49.7a 50.4a

10.4 10.0 9.2

Child genderd Male Female

48.3 48.6

9.4 9.7

48.8 48.5

9.5 10.0

48.7 48.4

10.0 10.1

Race/ethnicitye African American White Other

48.1 50.4 47.6

9.6 8.5 10.3

48.6 50.0 47.7

9.6 9.3 11.4

48.5 49.8 48.6

10.5 8.8 9.4

levela

Note. Reported means of profiles are expressed as T scores (M = 50, S.D. = 10), based on area conversion of precision-weighted factor scores (in standard z-score form). Means under the same variable heading (e.g. marital status) and in the same column that do not share letters (a, b) differ at p < 0.05 in the Tukey honestly significant difference comparison. If there are no subscript letters (a, b), there were no significant differences. a N = 642. b N = 641. c N = 628. d N = 599. e N = 639.

1274) = 2.00, p > 0.05, child gender F (3, 595) = 0.25, p > 0.10 or number of children per household, F (3, 408) = 0.83, p > 0.10. 5. Assessment of early childhood program differences The third set of analyses examined differences in PSEE factors across the preschool (Head Start, CELC), kindergarten, and first grade programs. A multiple analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was used to examine differences in PSEE factors. Marital status and caregiver employment status, which were related significantly to the PSEE scale, were used as the controlled covariates in this analysis. There was a significant effect for early childhood education program (Wilks’ Λ, F (12, 1630) = 6.84, p < 0.0001; η2p = 0.04; see Table 4). Significant program differences existed for teacher contact experiences (F (3, 922) = 10.9, p < 0.0001; η2p = 0.05), classroom contact experiences (F (3, 887) = 9.5, p < 0.0001; η2p = 0.04), and school contact experiences (F (3, 985) = 10.7, p < 0.0001; η2p = 0.05). For teacher contact experiences, kindergarten parents were significantly more satisfied than Head Start or CELC parents. In addition, Head Start and first grade parents were significantly more satisfied than parents of children in CELC. For classroom contact experiences, Head Start and kindergarten parents were significantly more satisfied than parents of CELC or first grade children. In terms of school contact experiences, Head Start and kindergarten parents were significantly more satisfied than parents of children in CELC or first grade.

J. Fantuzzo et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 21 (2006) 142–152

149

Table 4 Descriptive statistics for PSEE factors across program levels Variable

PSEE factor Teacher

Head Start CELC Kindergarten First grade

Classroom

School

M

S.D.

M

S.D.

M

S.D.

48.7b 43.9c 51.4a 48.8b

9.5 8.9 8.5 9.8

51.4a 45.7b 49.9a 46.2b

9.7 9.1 9.0 10.6

51.3a 45.1b 50.5a 46.6b

9.5 8.8 9.5 10.6

Note. Reported means of profiles are expressed as T scores (M = 50, S.D. = 10), based on area conversion of precision-weighted factor scores (in standard z-score form). Means in the same column that do not share subscript letters (a, b) differ at p < 0.05. N = 625. Complete data was not available on 23 participants. Listwise deletion was used.

6. Discussion The first objective of the present study was to develop and empirically test the Parent Satisfaction with Educational Experiences (PSEE) scale. The PSEE scale was co-constructed with parents and teachers representing preschool, kindergarten and first grade programs to enhance the content validity and cultural sensitivity of PSEE items. The development process produced a multivariate scale of parent satisfaction that met multiple construct validity criteria and yielded three reliable dimensions: teacher contact experiences, classroom contact experiences, and school contact experiences. These dimensions cover important aspects of parent–school contact, including exchanges with their child’s teacher, experiences in their child’s classroom, and interactions with other parents and with personnel at the school, respectively. The second objective of this research was to use these dimensions to determine whether there were differences as a function of child, careprovider, or educational program characteristics (preschool, kindergarten, and first grade). Significant differences in PSEE dimensions were found for parental employment and marital status. Parents who were employed part-time or unemployed were more satisfied with their experiences across all three contexts (teacher, classroom, and school) than parents who were employed full-time. Research investigating the association between parental employment status and parent involvement behaviors has been equivocal. Studies have generally found that parents who are employed full-time are less likely to be involved at the school site (Castro et al., 2004; Epstein, 1995; Ross Phillips, 2002). However, when the definition of involvement is broadened to include behaviors outside of the school building (e.g. involvement at home, dialogue with teacher), these differences are not seen (Fantuzzo et al., 2000). Additionally, it has been shown that when schools create opportunities for parents at various times of the day (i.e., not just during the school day), parents tend to participate more easily (U.S. Department of Education, 1998). The present finding could reflect an increased availability of parents who are not working full-time. Perhaps parents who are employed full-time have less time to devote to these points of contact and are dissatisfied with the efforts made by their child’s teacher and/or school to accommodate their schedules. Married parents were more satisfied with their teacher contact than non-married parents, but showed no significant differences with classroom or school experiences. Again, the empirical literature on parent involvement has shown that single parents are generally less involved at the school building (Epstein, 1995; Kohl et al., 1994; Reynolds, 1992). However, this does not necessarily translate into less contact with their child’s teacher (Kohl et al., 2000). Although single parents may not have less contact with the teacher than married parents, the contact that they do have may be more negative, resulting in lower levels of satisfaction. This could relate to teacher expectations of involvement and participation. When there are two parents in the home, there are two people to share in the responsibility of their child’s education. Single parents may feel more of a burden, especially in terms of teacher expectations, and again be dissatisfied with any efforts (or lack of efforts) made by the teacher to accommodate their needs. Dimensions of parent satisfaction were also found to be related to type of early childhood program. Specifically, there were significant differences in all three dimensions of parent satisfaction across preschool programs (Head Start and Comprehensive Early Learning Center), kindergarten, and first grade. Kindergarten and Head Start parents were

150

J. Fantuzzo et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 21 (2006) 142–152

significantly more satisfied with their classroom and school experiences than parents of children in Comprehensive Early Learning Center (CELC) or first grade. With Head Start having a distinct programmatic focus on parent involvement and with kindergarten often being families’ first contact with the school culture, these two programs are qualitatively different from child care and first grade. Head Start was founded as a two-generational program and recognizes the family as a child’s first teacher (Parker, Piotrkoswki, Horn, & Greene, 1995). As such, Head Start staff encourages parent involvement in many facets and actively works with parents to determine what kinds of programs will work best for them. Kindergarten is frequently a family’s initial introduction to a school environment, and there are often major school-wide initiatives to welcome and involve parents in their child’s kindergarten year (Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 1999). This particular kindergarten program also required parents to bring children to kindergarten. The higher levels of satisfaction across school and classroom contexts likely reflect the emphasis these two programs placed on home–school contact. In terms of teacher-related experiences, parents of children in kindergarten evinced higher levels of satisfaction than parents of children in Head Start or CELC. Additionally, parents of children in Head Start and first grade reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction than parents of children in CELC. The program differences described above may reflect teacher practices. Kindergarten teachers may place more emphasis on connecting with parents than teachers in other early childhood programs; they may have even received specialized training in transition practices (Early, Pianta, & Cox, 1999). Early childhood educators in programs with an educational emphasis are more likely than teachers in a child care program to recognize the importance of partnering with parents. These values are likely reflected in increased levels of parent satisfaction. The present investigation contributes to the parent involvement and home–school relationship literature by providing the first empirical documentation of multiple dimensions of parent satisfaction with their child’s early educational experiences. This research is also the first to establish significant relationships between family demographic variables and type of early childhood program and dimensions of parental satisfaction. These preliminary findings are qualified by significant though very modest effect sizes. These factors should be explored in larger and more heterogeneous samples of young children. While the empirical investigation of the PSEE scale represents a contribution to early childhood education literature, the unique characteristics of the sample qualify these findings. The target population for this study was young children from preschool programs, kindergarten and first grade in a large urban school district, which serves a disproportionately large percentage of low to low-middle income minority (predominantly African American) families. Therefore, these findings are most generalizable to early childhood educational programs in school districts with similar characteristics. Future research should examine the relations between PSEE dimensions and family involvement behaviors. Such an examination would provide a clearer picture of the bi-directional nature of these two important concepts (i.e., how satisfaction shapes involvement and how involvement influences satisfaction) (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001). In addition, having established parent satisfaction constructs that are appropriate for use in preschool through first grade programs, researchers can investigate how PSEE factors change over time (i.e., do the same dimensions emerge with parents of older elementary school students or with parents of high school students), and how these changes relate to parent involvement and to students’ outcomes. The current study has important implications for educational policy and practice. It substantiates that there are distinct dimensions of parent satisfaction with their child’s educational experiences. Knowledge about parental satisfaction can be used to inform policies and practices, especially those related to home–school partnerships. Since the PSEE is a brief survey, it can be collected several times per year. As such, it can be used to monitor levels of satisfaction throughout the school year, and practices can be adjusted accordingly. Additionally, district administrators can gather information about satisfaction levels to examine satisfaction across grades. This type of inquiry could identify continuity or discontinuity in satisfaction as children make the transition from preschool to kindergarten or from kindergarten to first grade. Research has emphasized the significance of continuity between home and school contexts (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001; Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 1999). Schools need to develop partnership practices that keep parents involved in appropriate ways as children progress in school. In fact, information gleaned from successful home, school, and community partnerships throughout the country demonstrates that in order to maximize effectiveness, partners need to collaborate through the child’s first 8 years (Mangione & Speth, 1998). Satisfaction with school contact experience is one important indicator of effective home–school partnerships. The present research provides evidence for one type of practice to assess satisfaction that can be used through children’s early years in school.

J. Fantuzzo et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 21 (2006) 142–152

151

Appendix A Parent satisfaction with educational experiences scale items.2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

parent involvement in planning activities; volunteering in classroom; telephone conversations with teacher; support given for parent involvement in school; parent participation in decision making; notes sent home; contact I have had with other parents; workshops or training opportunities offered; conferences with teacher; contact I have had with principal/administrators; school work sent home to work on with child; support for our family’s language and culture.

Note. Item wording has been abbreviated for ease of presentation. References Becker, H. J., & Epstein, J. L. (1982). Parent involvement: A study of teacher practices. Elementary School Journal, 83, 85–102. Castro, D. C., Bryant, D. M., Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., & Skinner, M. L. (2004). Parent involvement in Head Start programs: The role of parent, teacher and classroom characteristics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 413–430. Cattell, R. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276. Chavkin, N., & Williams, D. (1993). Minority parents and the elementary school: Attitudes and practices. In N. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Christenson, S. L. (2004). The family–school partnership: An opportunity to promote the learning competence of all students. School Psychology Review, 33, 83–104. Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). Schools and families: Creating essential connections for learning. New York: The Guilford Press. Dauber, S. L., & Epstein, J. L. (1989). Parents’ attitudes and practices of involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools (CREMS Report 33). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools. Dickenson, D. K., & DeTemple, J. (1998). Putting parents in the picture: Maternal reports of preschoolers’ literacy as a predictor of early reading. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 241–261. Early, D. M., Pianta, R. C., & Cox, M. J. (1999). Kindergarten teachers and classrooms: A transition context. Early Education and Development, 10, 25–46. Epstein, J. L. (1986). Parents’ reactions to teacher practices of parent involvement. Elementary School Journal, 86, 277–294. Epstein, J. L. (1991). Effects on student achievement of teachers’ practices of parent involvement. In S. B. Silvern (Ed.), Advances in reading/language research, Vol. 5. Literacy through family, community, and school interaction (pp. 261–276). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701–712. Epstein, J. L. (1996). Perspectives and previews on research and policy for school, family, and community partnerships. In A. Booth & J. Dunn (Eds.), Family–school links: How do they affect educational outcomes? (pp. 209–246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Fantuzzo, J., Tighe, E., & Childs, S. (2000). Family involvement questionnaire: A multivariate assessment of family participation in early childhood education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 367–376. Fantuzzo, J., Tighe, E., & Perry, M. (1999). Relationships between family involvement in Head Start and children’s interactive peer play. NHSA Dialog, 3, 60–67. Galper, A., Wigfield, A., & Seefeldt, C. (1997). Head Start parents’ beliefs about their children’s abilities, task values, and performances on different activities. Child Development, 68, 897–907. Gaskins, S. (1994). Integrating interpretive and quantitative methods in socialization research. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 313–333. Gaudagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. (1991). A comparison of pattern matching indices. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26, 323–343. Griffith, J. (1996). Relation of parental involvement, empowerment, and school traits to student academic performance. Journal of Educational Research, 90, 33–41. Harman, H. (1976). Modern factor analysis (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

2 Requests for manuals for the Parent Satisfaction with Educational Experiences scale (including scale items, conditions for use, and scoring information) can be addressed to the first author.

152

J. Fantuzzo et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 21 (2006) 142–152

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67, 3–42. Johnstone, T.R., & Hiatt, D.B. (1997). Development of a school-based parent center for low-income new immigrants. Paper presented at the proceedings of the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL. Kohl, G. K., Weissberg, R. P., Reynolds, A. J., & Kasprow, W. J. (1994, August). Teacher perceptions of parent involvement in urban elementary schools: Sociodemographic and school adjustment correlates. Paper presented at the proceedings of the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association. August 1994, Los Angeles, CA. Kohl, G. O., Lengua, L. J., & McMahon, R. J. (2000). Parent involvement in school: Conceptualizing multiple dimensions and their relations with family and demographic risk factors. Journal of School Psychology, 38, 501–523. Lautenschlager, G., Lance, C., & Flaherty, V. (1989). Parallel analysis criteria: Revised equations for estimating the latent roots of random data correlation matrices. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 339–345. Mangione, P. L., & Speth, T. (1998). The transition to elementary school: A framework for creating early childhood continuity through home, school, and community partnerships. Elementary School Journal, 98, 381–397. Mantzicopoulos, P. Y. (1997). The relationship of family variables to Head Start children’s preacademic competence. Early Education and Development, 8, 357–375. Marcon, R. A. (1999). Positive relationships between parent school involvement and public school inner-city preschoolers’ development and academic performance. School Psychology Review, 28, 395–412. McDermott, P. A. (1993). National standardization of a uniform multisituational measure of child and adolescent psychopathology. Psychological Assessment, 5, 413–424. McDermott, P. A., & Weiss, R. V. (1995). A normative typology of healthy, subclinical, and clinical behavior styles among American children and adolescents. Psychological Assessment, 7, 162–170. McWayne, C., Hampton, V., Fantuzzo, J., Cohen, H. L., & Sekino, Y. (2004). A multivariate examination of parent involvement and the social and academic competencies of urban kindergarten children. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 363–377. Miedel, W. T., & Reynolds, A. J. (1999). Parent involvement in early intervention for disadvantaged children: Does it matter? Journal of School Psychology, 37, 379–402. Parker, F. L., Boak, A. Y., Griffin, K. W., Ripple, C., & Peay, L. (1999). Parent-child relationship, home learning environment, and school readiness. School Psychology Review, 28, 413–425. Parker, F.L., Piotrkowski, C.S., Horn, W.F., & Greene, S.M. (1995). The challenge for Head Start: Realizing its vision as a two-generation program. In: I. Sigel (Series Ed.) & S. Smith (Vol. Ed.), Advances in applied developmental psychology: Vol. 9. Two generation programs for families in poverty: A new intervention strategy (pp. 135–159). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Parker, F., Piotrowski, C., Kesslar-Sklar, S., Baker, A., Peay, L., & Clark, B. (1997). Final report: Parent involvement in Head Start. New York: National Council of Jewish Women. Patrikakou, E. N., & Weissberg, R. P. (2000). Parents’ perceptions of teacher outreach and parent involvement in children’s education. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 20, 103–119. Raffaele, L. M., & Knoff, H. M. (1999). Improving home–school collaboration with disadvantaged families: Organizational principles, perspectives, and approaches. School Psychology Review, 28, 448–466. Reynolds, A. J. (1992). Comparing measures of parental involvement and their effects on academic achievement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 441–462. Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Robertson, D. L., & Mann, E. A. (2001). Long-term effects of an early childhood intervention on educational achievement and juvenile arrest: A 15-year follow-up of low-income children in public schools. JAMA, 285(18), 2339–2346. Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Pianta, R. C. (1999). Patterns of family–school contact in preschool and kindergarten. School Psychology Review, 28, 426–438. Ross Phillips, K. (2002). Parent work and child well-being in low-income families (Occasional Paper Number 56). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Sanders, M. G. (2000). Creating successful school-based partnership programs with families of special needs students. The School Community Journal, 10, 37–56. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Author. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. (2004). Readiness: School, Family, and Community Connections. Austin, TX: Author. Sui-Chu, E. H., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parent involvement on eighth-grade achievement. Sociology of Education, 69, 126–141. Thorndike, R. L. (1982). Applied psychometrics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. U.S. Department of Education. (1994). Strong families, strong schools. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Education (2001). National Center for Education Statistics. In Xianglei Chen (Ed.), Efforts by Public K–8 Schools to Involve Parents in Children’s Education: Do School and Parent Reports Agree? NCES 2001-076. Project Officer: Kathryn Chandler. Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Education (1998). National Center for Education Statistics. In Nancy Carey, Laurie Lewis, & Elizabeth Farris (Eds.), Parent Involvement in Children’s Education: Efforts by Public Elementary Schools, NCES 98-032. Project Officer, Shelley Burns. Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Education (2004). No Child Left Behind Act. February 11, 2005, http://www.ed.gov/nclb.